INTERACTIONS AMONG MECHANISMS OF SEXUAL SELECTION ON MALE BODY SIZE AND HEAD SHAPE IN A SEXUALLY DIMORPHIC FLY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Darwin envisaged male-male and male-female interactions as mutually supporting mechanisms of sexual selection, in which the best armed males were also the most attractive to females. Although this belief continues to predominate today, it has been challenged by sexual conflict theory, which suggests that divergence in the interests of males and females may result in conflicting sexual selection. This raises the empirical question of how multiple mechanisms of sexual selection interact to shape targeted traits. We investigated sexual selection on male morphology in the sexually dimorphic fly Prochyliza xanthostoma, using indices of male performance in male-male and male-female interactions in laboratory arenas to calculate gradients of direct, linear selection on male body size and an index of head elongation. In male-male combat, the first interaction with a new opponent selected for large body size but reduced head elongation, whereas multiple interactions with the same opponent favored large body size only. In male-female interactions, females preferred males with relatively elongated heads, but male performance of the precopulatory leap favored large body size and, possibly, reduced head elongation. In addition, the amount of sperm transferred (much of which is ingested by females) was an increasing function of both body size and head elongation. Thus, whereas both male-male and male-female interactions favored large male body size, male head shape appeared to be subject to conflicting sexual selection. We argue that conflicting sexual selection may be a common result of divergence in the interests of the sexes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".